You are here

Announcements

All Kickstarter Backers: Please go to your Kickstarter account and update your emails.
We're trying to give you as much time as possible for the staged rollout of pre-Alpha.
Make sure you can log in, and make sure your email address is up to date.
Please make sure *@missingworldsmedia.com is set to Allowed or Not Junk in your email settings.

Loss of Net Neutrality and Indie MMORPGs - How Will We Be Affected?

Maybe not a loss of free speech persay, but a loss of platform, certainly. And a loss of being able to view other points of view. Again there is nothing but the good will of these companies now from completely blocking traffic from sites they don't agree with politically or morally. Only now they need to tell you they're doing that.

As opposed to the good will and word of the gov't? That's never turned out bad in the past..."If you like your doctor, you can keep him..." etc etc etc.

I'd sooner trust the government over a corporation who's sole interest lies in parting me with as much of my money as possible.

What does the government gain from having net neutrality? Some good will of the people?

What do corporations gain from the lack of net neutrality? The ability to chop up and resell the internet as they deem fit, limiting or blocking sites they don't agree with, etc etc.

It's a simple case of "Who has what to gain" in this. Follow the money as they say. And in this case corporations gain, consumers lose.

Remember these are the same entities that do things like exclusive pre-order content up to and including parts of the game, microtransactions (they're just cosmetic! Coughbattlefront2cough), predetory tactics like gambl- I mean loot boxes, etc. Big companies are not in it for your interests, unless you happen to be a CEO or shareholder, they're in it for the MONEY. Governments are at least in theory for the people. Corporations never have been and never will be.

Edit: Think about it. Corporations wouldn't want to repeal something if they had nothing to gain from it. If it was fine to have it leave it alone! Net Neutrality never hurt anyone, but now we gotta get rid of it? Effing why!?

I'd sooner trust the government over a corporation who's sole interest lies in parting me with as much of my money as possible.
What does the government gain from having net neutrality? Some good will of the people?
What do corporations gain from the lack of net neutrality? The ability to chop up and resell the internet as they deem fit, limiting or blocking sites they don't agree with, etc etc.
It's a simple case of "Who has what to gain" in this. Follow the money as they say. And in this case corporations gain, consumers lose.
Remember these are the same entities that do things like exclusive pre-order content up to and including parts of the game, microtransactions (they're just cosmetic! Coughbattlefront2cough), predetory tactics like gambl- I mean loot boxes, etc. Big companies are not in it for your interests, unless you happen to be a CEO or shareholder, they're in it for the MONEY. Governments are at least in theory for the people. Corporations never have been and never will be.
Edit: Think about it. Corporations wouldn't want to repeal something if they had nothing to gain from it. If it was fine to have it leave it alone! Net Neutrality never hurt anyone, but now we gotta get rid of it? Effing why!?

Sorry but that's where you are wrong. Net neutrality keeps pricing higher than it could be because it forces ISP's to give and charge the same for internet whether you are Joe Schmo who only blogs or Google. That's why corps like Google want Net Neutrality...it's a YUGE cost savings for them. NN also doesn't permit people paying for faster/more internet...so new tech like self-driving cars that needs response times in the milliseconds can't get it. ISP have no financial incentive to throttle/block websites because of the customer backlash they know they would get. This repeal will help smaller, start-up ISP's get into areas where there is only a single provider and offer competition because of the deregulation.

As far as loot boxes, exclusive pre-order content, microtransactions, etc...what point are you trying to prove? You don't have to buy any of that. It's not required or forced on you so...??? ALL companies, even most "non-profit" are in it for the money, not the consumer. That's how the free market works, supply and demand dictate price.

I don't recall the public demand for loot boxes, nor for pre order exclusives, nor for parts of a game being chopped out of it to be resold as dlc. Supply and demand my foot. More like "Hey people didn't complain too much about this and some schmucks are buying it, turn it up to 11."

The point is they're corporations. They want your money. No financial incentives? Bull. They'll give you crap internet for slightly lower price then nickle and dime you to speed up certain sites, or use their new found freedom to block any competition to any of their services and such.

And at least up here in Canada I can certainly pay more for faster internet. When and where it's available. Where I live they won't let the companies tear up the roads to get new lines down but that's a private property issue.

Cause what the US ISPs will do is sell you packages of sites like they do with TV. And any site that doesn't pay into that will have their bandwidth throttled. This is how they'll make money off of this. Carving up what you used to have as standard and selling it back to you piecemeal. Much like videogame companies have done with games.

all the drama reminds me of the 1999-2000 computer doomsday predictions.

Less catastrophic in scope, as it's more of the social impact and monetary impact. Might raise the cost of some online services based in the states for us up in Canada Land, but that'll hopefully be the worst of it we see up here. Down there? Future looks pretty dim.

And even then the electoral college (a group, as far as I am aware, that is not chosen by the people) get to decide who wins, the presidency anyway.

Yes, in the end they do, however, the votes have gone to who the districts have voted for or they've abstained from voting.

Yes, the electoral votes can cause the majority vote to lose, but like what both parties will tell you, that's only a bad thing when your side loses. :p If they went up straight popular vote, they'd not only run in just a few key cities, they'd for sure pander to the lowest person (Vote for me and I'll give you everything you want!) and then go back on their word there :p

That said The Orville did an episode all about a society that worked just on popular vote, while fictional, it pretty much shows you how dumb it is to put everything on pure popular vote (which many already knew, but for some reason there's always a few dummies who think everything should be popular vote).

Brand X wrote:
However, let's look at that. We don't see Canada with Net Neutrality and they DO have a lack of freedom of speech. UK too! I can only imagine the rest of the EU likely does.
Wait - when did those of us in the UK and the EU lose our freedom of speech?

When you could go to jail for calling a male a him, a female a her. Let's see, Germany I believe puts you in jail if you don't believe in certain parts of history and wear certain symbols.

As an article has pointed out, Comcast has already reworded everything they said.

Companies will do all they can to make more money off people. They don't care about the average person. So, seeing as how they don't care about the average person, they really don't care about the bottom of society.

The reason for NN was because a company was already found to be screwing with people.

Seriously, how hard is it for a ISP to just go "You're paying us for access to the internet!" They don't need to then go "You also have to pay us for better speeds to certain sites!"

Cinnder wrote:
Brand X wrote:
However, let's look at that. We don't see Canada with Net Neutrality and they DO have a lack of freedom of speech. UK too! I can only imagine the rest of the EU likely does.
Wait - when did those of us in the UK and the EU lose our freedom of speech?
When you could go to jail for calling a male a him, a female a her. Let's see, Germany I believe puts you in jail if you don't believe in certain parts of history and wear certain symbols.

I think for the first example you mean willfully misgendering a person as a form of harrassment and possibly a hate crime, then yes? And the second is wilfully endorsing the actions of a terrible group of people or filling that trying to rewrite history so to make those aforementioned terrible group of people look marginally better... Then also yes?

Hate speech is a crime in some countries you know? Same as uttering threats and suchlike.

This is the only thread ever to get close to being political on this board. I certainly hope it is the last.
That said, I like everyone here even if you completely disagree with me.

We're all here for the same purpose, we support City of Titans. And with that in mind I do worry that any changes in the US ISP policies could adversely affect CoT. Higher internet costs, higher costs for running an online service, etc. Any of those things could adversely affect our little game. More so if the worst of what folks assume will happen happen. That our happy little dev team will have to pay more to not have their bandwidth throttled, which in turn would up the cost of the game, which in turn will reduce the amount of players, which in turn reduce their income, which in turn could end with our game shutting down. Depending on severity of costs and all that. This is a worst case scenario though.

Brand X wrote:
Cinnder wrote:
Brand X wrote:
However, let's look at that. We don't see Canada with Net Neutrality and they DO have a lack of freedom of speech. UK too! I can only imagine the rest of the EU likely does.
Wait - when did those of us in the UK and the EU lose our freedom of speech?
When you could go to jail for calling a male a him, a female a her. Let's see, Germany I believe puts you in jail if you don't believe in certain parts of history and wear certain symbols.
I think for the first example you mean willfully misgendering a person as a form of harrassment and possibly a hate crime, then yes? And the second is wilfully endorsing the actions of a terrible group of people or filling that trying to rewrite history so to make those aforementioned terrible group of people look marginally better... Then also yes?
Hate speech is a crime in some countries you know? Same as uttering threats and suchlike.

Aye, well said. Or the classic yelling 'fire' in a crowded cinema. Every country has some restrictions on speech, even the US. As an American living overseas, I try to dispel myths like this so I don't have to feel embarrassed to admit my country of origin.

Brand X wrote:
Cinnder wrote:
Brand X wrote:
However, let's look at that. We don't see Canada with Net Neutrality and they DO have a lack of freedom of speech. UK too! I can only imagine the rest of the EU likely does.
Wait - when did those of us in the UK and the EU lose our freedom of speech?
When you could go to jail for calling a male a him, a female a her. Let's see, Germany I believe puts you in jail if you don't believe in certain parts of history and wear certain symbols.
I think for the first example you mean willfully misgendering a person as a form of harrassment and possibly a hate crime, then yes? And the second is wilfully endorsing the actions of a terrible group of people or filling that trying to rewrite history so to make those aforementioned terrible group of people look marginally better... Then also yes?
Hate speech is a crime in some countries you know? Same as uttering threats and suchlike.

Rewriting history is all everyone does. America included. I never said they didn't. We haven't put them in jail for it yet.

And yes, putting people in jail for books being written that the government doesn't like, or writing posts on FB that the government doesn't like, isn't freedom. Whether hate filled or not. Not to mention a waste of tax payer money, sending someone to jail for writing that they hate someone, is just plain stupid.

Maybe it's time for people who write about how they hate one sports team over another, should go to jail for their hate crime :p

So goes to point, NN doesn't stop freedom of speech, it's governments that do and it's governments trying to force people into line and only sheep afraid of their shadows should really think it's a good thing, so NN won't be the nail in freedom of speech's coffin. Especially since company forums can set the rules of what is and isn't said on their forums. Like what they consider cursing and what they don't.

There's a big difference between "I don't like x sports team for reasons" and "I think all members of a particular race/religion/social group should be rounded up and killed."

If someone made a book calling for the death of a specific sports team and all of their followers that'd be considered a threat and that person would be arrested.

There's a big difference between not liking a thing and wishing the thing destroyed.

And I don't think only governments can restrict free speech. Their one of the few entities that can exert a nation wide restriction on free speech. But even on steam comments about crappy games are removed and users blocked by salty devs, and is this not a restriction of free speech? It's not a constitutional one as that is only enforceable by the government, but it is a restriction of the sharing of ideas, which is pretty much the same.

And that's what a lack of Net Neutrality -can- do. Corporations could block content they disagree with, effectively silencing voices. Don't like how a news site talks about them? Blocked. Don't think x content should be accessed on their network? Blocked. There is literally nothing stopping them now. All they have to do is say they're going to do it first. And they'll put spin on it. And they'll talk out their butts and say they're doing it for the safety or whatever of their customers. And some will have the only options of continuing to use that service or have no service. And they probably don't even have that really. As contracts exist and just up and cancelling will probably burden you with a hefty sum. So cool. They can either pay to keep the crap they don't want any more or pay to leave it. Got folks coming and going.

Corporations already do that. The freedom of speech angle doesn't work on private forums. Which, I've never argued against.

Though now, people may not have a corporation in their area that won't limit them.

Doesn't matter though. The right to free thought/speech means you shouldn't go to jail for posting this and this bad thing should happen to this and this people. You should go to jail however, if you actually commit the acts. There's a difference between saying something and doing it, and arresting anyone for just saying something (there's a difference between I hate such and such group and yelling fire in a crowded building btw) is retarded.

. Corporations could block content they disagree with, effectively silencing voices. Don't like how a news site talks about them? Blocked. Don't think x content should be accessed on their network? Blocked.

They already do...under NN, Private sites can ban users for whatever reasons.
The Devs here can ban me at any time. They don't need to give a reason, its their site, their rules.

NN never stopped any of that. Its how a religious site can allow only believers on the site. A political party site can only allow their people on the site as a kind of sanctuary - to where they can discuss issues without constantly having to defend their beliefs.

It has always been like this and NN never changed a thing in that regard. Free Speech will NOT be affected.

Sites can specifically govern themselves this way yes because they are a small privately owned thing they can add or block anyone they like. This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. The fact is that -with- Net Neutrality ISP's can't tell you that say "You are not allowed to use Netflix with our service." They now can. Your ISP can effectively act like the controls work computers tend to have where you can not access certain sites on their network. Would you like to have what sites you can and can not visit dictated to you by your ISP?

Brand X

If someone legitimately threatened you, and you believe they had full power and intent to carry out that act would you prefer that the police could do something about it? Or that they tell you, "eh. Come back when you're actually murdered?" Cause for me it'd be the former. If as a cop you see a detailed plan for a robbery or a murder don't you think they should be able to do something about that instead of waiting for someone to die? See these are things called preventative measures. How many times must a person threaten to kill someone before you start to think that that person may be unbalanced and having them somewhere where they won't act on what they say is a good idea? What would you say to the family of someone who was killed by someone who had repeatedly threatened them before hand? "Well he always said he'd do that, but we didn't think we should step in."

In your mind is it more important for someone to have the right to harass and threaten others than for them to have the right to not be harassed and threatened?

Saying you hate something I don't think counts as hate speech. Though how someone could hate an entire group of people without ever meeting them is beyond me.

Cinnder wrote:
Or the classic yelling 'fire' in a crowded cinema.
These days, the fastest way to empty a theater isn't to yell "fire" ... instead all you have to do is Roll Credits and the theater will empty amazingly fast.

Sites can specifically govern themselves this way yes because they are a small privately owned thing they can add or block anyone they like. This has nothing to do with Net Neutrality. The fact is that -with- Net Neutrality ISP's can't tell you that say "You are not allowed to use Netflix with our service." They now can. Your ISP can effectively act like the controls work computers tend to have where you can not access certain sites on their network. Would you like to have what sites you can and can not visit dictated to you by your ISP?
Brand X
If someone legitimately threatened you, and you believe they had full power and intent to carry out that act would you prefer that the police could do something about it? Or that they tell you, "eh. Come back when you're actually murdered?" Cause for me it'd be the former. If as a cop you see a detailed plan for a robbery or a murder don't you think they should be able to do something about that instead of waiting for someone to die? See these are things called preventative measures. How many times must a person threaten to kill someone before you start to think that that person may be unbalanced and having them somewhere where they won't act on what they say is a good idea? What would you say to the family of someone who was killed by someone who had repeatedly threatened them before hand? "Well he always said he'd do that, but we didn't think we should step in."
In your mind is it more important for someone to have the right to harass and threaten others than for them to have the right to not be harassed and threatened?
Saying you hate something I don't think counts as hate speech. Though how someone could hate an entire group of people without ever meeting them is beyond me.

First, there's a difference between yelling it directly in someone's face and writing it down. Sorry, someone writing a book, writing a post, is not the same as going straight up to your face and yelling it at you.

Second, they did have people threatening people like me, calling for the murder of people like me and it was considered racist to be against them. No, I didn't want to see them arrested for talk, only action. For talk, I just say how bad they are. :p

Depends what you're writing down, and what gets done with it. If it's some form of manifesto clearly dictating a plan of action, or writing on a wall in red paint, etc etc. Like if someone posted on Facebook or some online forum that they're going to go shoot up some place you don't think that should be investigated? Remember if it's not a crime to write it they can't use that as a reason to intervene. We'll they haven't actually done it yet. They just said they were going to and then later posted a picture of the legally obtained weapon they're going to use.

Who is this nebulous "they" you're talking about? And it's never considered racist to say "Yeah, no thanks I don't wish to be murdered."

Project_Hero wrote:
. Corporations could block content they disagree with, effectively silencing voices. Don't like how a news site talks about them? Blocked. Don't think x content should be accessed on their network? Blocked.
They already do...under NN, Private sites can ban users for whatever reasons.
The Devs here can ban me at any time. They don't need to give a reason, its their site, their rules.
NN never stopped any of that. Its how a religious site can allow only believers on the site. A political party site can only allow their people on the site as a kind of sanctuary - to where they can discuss issues without constantly having to defend their beliefs.
It has always been like this and NN never changed a thing in that regard. Free Speech will NOT be affected.

But, with the repeal of NN, this are different. It's not a case of the site owners blocking content or banning users on their forum. A more apt example would be suppose that your ISP does not want to go to MWM's website or to download CoT, then they can block you from accessing the site - regardless what the site admin's wishes. Another way to illustrate this point to look at phone services: suppose your phone service provider doesn't want to you call any Dominoes Pizza shop, because they rather you only call Papa Johns. Does that sound okay to you?

With the repeal of Net Neutrality, ISPs can hamstring any legal website content on their whims. The ISP can also decide to throttle political party X website so their member do have their sanctuary and cannot coordinate.

Again, this is different from a site owner banning you, because if I get banned from this website, I can go elsewhere. If the ISPs start to limit or restrict my access to legal site, then options due to the limited alternatives.

That's a recipe for curbing free speech and freedom of assembly. Maybe the ISPs will go hog-wild, maybe they won't. But I wouldn't put it passed them.

There was a KKK guy who wrote a book back in the 80's. He detailed how to kill blacks. Some punks followed what the book said and killed a guy.
The punks got the death penalty and the author went to jail.

The system worked.all guilty parties went to jail.

BUT. The author was not prosecuted until after the murder happened. Why? Free Speech.

It is a despicable example. But it shows the sanctity of Free Speech. NN never touched Speech. There will be NO effect on free speech.

I hope that book wasn't properly published. If it was I'd have wanted the publisher to be taken to court too.

Only it did happen before. Just not to that extreme. They throttled the bandwidth of services. And before the FCC could step in and stop them (and did), now they can not. So why in your view is the FCC having say about it different from the US Trade Commission having say? What part of the US Trade Commission can do something about a website being blocked? Which by lack of net neutrality is these companies right to do.

So far I haven't heard any reasons (or at least any good reasons) at all as to why getting rid of Net Neutrality is a good thing. Like if we were fine with it why get rid of it? What did it do that needed it to go? We didn't have it before and ISPs effed with sites and services. So please Defenders of it's slaying why did this need to happen?

Why ask why? Its done and over with. Time to live life and eat a fine dinner.

You heard it here folks. It's done, so we can't debate let alone to try fight back. On a website forum that about reviving a superhero mmo, I find this sort of sentiment very ironic. After all, that line could had been said when NCSoft shut down City of Heroes.

We'll. I can. You folks in the states might want to save money for when your net prices skyrocket.
Also I'm taking your answer to mean you don't know. You have no reason. You just believe government bad so less government oversight good. So I'll just go with that.

I won't debate for two reasons
1) its a moot point now, the debate is over.
2) this site is my sanctuary from politics

I have already stated that I think your apocalyptic predictions are not true. I will not debate something that is already decided.

I didn't say ending NN would make it so you can't post certain things on forums. Where'd you get that?

I meant losing NN would mean ISP's could make sites with opinions they don't like unreachable. If every time someone hosts a website that supports a certain opinion that the ISP doesn't like, that site is effectively shut down, then you are not allowed to state that opinion. They could throttle every site that is for a specific religion, or a specific sect of a specific religion, or that has a specific political opinion. Sure, you could still be part of that religion, but you couldn't talk about it online, at least not on your own site. They could shut down Brietbart or Huffpost, or both. And considering Comcast is also NBC, guess which one they'd more like to shut down, ironically.

The internet is the only outlet for most people. This isn't the founding days when the population was small enough that anyone could just shout loud enough and be heard. Most people do not have book deals or media contacts, and shouting from a bullhorn doesn't do anything anymore, not with restrictions to protesting being added in many states. The fact that this is coming on the heels of protest restrictions is a worrying double-whammy of shutting-people-up. As a result, creating a blog or .org or somesuch is the only way most get their opinion heard. Now, the ISP can decide their opinion does not deserve to be heard and make it so it can't be heard.

You're thinking of freedom of speech being violated only when you go to jail for saying something. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about not being able to say it in the first place, which as far as I'm concerned, is also not freedom of speech, and certainly not freedom of the press. If I can make a certain website with an opinion Comcast doesn't like, and that site can be viewed in the UK, but not in the US, then which country can I speak freely in? Not the US.

Is it likely they're going to do this with wanton abandonment? Well, no, because people will start quitting their services at breakneck pace even if that means downgrading. However, the frequency isn't important. What's important is that they can, and will. Even if just one person gets shut up this way, it's still a central governing authority determining what you can and can't say, which by my definition, is not freedom of speech. I don't care if it's called the government or called a corporation. I don't care if you're being silenced by laws or being silenced electronically. In the end, it doesn't matter. A small group of people, accountable to no one, sitting in a private meeting, shouldn't be able to determine what kind of opinion site I'm allowed to make.

While the FCC made a decision, that is no more final than the prior 2015 FCC decision to implement "Net Neutrality" (via reclassifying ISPs under Title II), which after all is just one way...maybe not the best...of actually achieving what most of us would consider a fair* and open internet.

Fair and neutral aren't necessarily the same; for instance, even on my own network I can see the value of breaking neutrality. I prioritize VOIP traffic - which requires reliable and high speed (but small) transfers - and deprioritize downloading a game from Steam - which can be easily resumed if halted, and takes a lot of bandwidth that I might rather reserve (partially) for playing an MMO or chatting with a friend while I play. In my network, I'm deciding that it's better to be fair than to be neutral, when I prioritize VOIP over MMO traffic over Youtube videos over Steam downloading. If after that prioritization I'm no longer happy with the Steam download rate (because it's what suffers by prioritizing the others), I'd want to boost capacity. That's me being fair but not neutral - ensuring that each type of traffic gets handled such that it is delivered at the speed and volume needed to make the users (me & my family) pleased.

I wish I could trust all ISPs to spend our connection fees to do the same, so that even the "least important/slow" traffic would get delivered at a reasonable pace for [country&region] in [current year]. I also wish I could trust them not to manipulate their network to prefer their own content over others', but I simply don't. That doesn't mean I trust the FCC/etc either, as it seems too easy for a big ISP to push the FCC into a stance that protects them from competition, or for certain political elements to use the FCC's Title II power as a leash to tug the main internet players into stifling opposing political views. Of course, those main corporate players often have their own political culture/views and thus have motives to manipulate opinions even in the absence of regulatory threats. We're not talking about Free Speech (as in the US Constitution, protected from most government interference), or "free" speech with no consequences, but free speech with consequences, which has been a core part of a fair and open internet. I don't see any good coming from middlemen (corporate or government, political or financial) being permitted to interfere with what users can say or read, except where those users have agreed to limit themselves (by signing up on this forum, for instance, or by accepting citizenship under a constitution).

With all these motives in play, all sorts of further changes could occur via court decisions, congressional legislation, FCC/executive branch personnel reshuffling, international treaties... The fact that "NN via Title II" can be so easily done and undone is clear evidence that it's not a long-term solution, and is quite specific to a particular nation, whether a person sees it as good or bad.

Will the FTC and FCC want / be able to protect US internet end users adequately under the pre-2015 rules while following the DC circuit court's decision that prompted the Title II push in the first place? Will attempts by states or consumer groups to reinstate "NN via ISPs under Title II" succeed in courts? Will some future congress permit the FCC to more completely regulate ISPs even without such a classification? In the mean time, will changes in technology, overreach by an ISP, or new user behaviors disrupt the system so that the fairness and openness of the internet is either enshrined or endangered compared to it current state?

Wait - when did those of us in the UK and the EU lose our freedom of speech?

You didn't. In fact according to the world press freedom index you rank higher than America.
Brand X seems to be confusing hate speech with inciting of criminal behavior. One is Orwell's '1984' Thought Police and the other is proactive public protection. Canada, the UK and much of Europe have much clearer laws as to what separates speech from incitement than America does.

Wait - when did those of us in the UK and the EU lose our freedom of speech?

You didn't. In fact according to the world press freedom index you rank higher than America.
Brand X seems to be confusing hate speech with inciting of criminal behavior. One is Orwell's '1984' Thought Police and the other is proactive public protection. Canada, the UK and much of Europe have much clearer laws as to what separates speech from incitement than America does.

USA! USA! USA!

I just think it's funny using the USA chant when the us does something dumb.

Wait - when did those of us in the UK and the EU lose our freedom of speech?

You didn't. In fact according to the world press freedom index you rank higher than America.
Brand X seems to be confusing hate speech with inciting of criminal behavior. One is Orwell's '1984' Thought Police and the other is proactive public protection. Canada, the UK and much of Europe have much clearer laws as to what separates speech from incitement than America does.

Calling someone something they don't like to called, is not inciting of criminal behavior. That puts people in jail. You also don't put people in jail for denying something happened. Such a waste of tax payer money and some people think "Yay! My tax dollars at work, now why aren't I making more money? Why am I so poor?" Because you have to pay for dumb things like that.

I hate mushrooms. There. Hate speech. Time to toss me into jail for that hate speech. :p

Maybe time to put those flat earthers into prison for inciting ignorance.

Brand X, calling someone something they don't like to be called is not in of itself criminal behavior. Having it done repeatedly would be harassment which would probably only result in the police telling someone to cut it out. And then if said behavior continued they might face a fine, not jail time. I'm pretty sure for non-violent hate crimes you just get fined which doesn't really waste tax payer money, as far as I know.

And it can't really be classified as hate speech as mushrooms aren't sapient enough to understand the language nor, do I assume, any of them frequently browse the internet to see that.

If you wish to privately engage in hate speech either written or verbal you can go right ahead and you won't get into trouble for it. It's when it starts to be a public problem that the law tends to step in.

Your rights end where another's begins. It's everyone's right to live in our free countries un-assaulted this includes verbally. Once you start to make another uncomfortable or threatened is when you've gone too far.

Do they get jailed or fined? Cause there's a big difference there. In what way we're they denying this war crime? Were they yelling it on the streets? Talking in some public platform? Cause yeah, that could totally be attempting to incite violence.

And only if those flat earthers were disturbing the peace or otherwise engaged in another criminal activity would that be cause to fine and/or jail them. They wouldn't be inciting violence by talking about how the earth isn't round. Unfortunately we can't just jail idiots if we did a large part of the population would be incarcerated.

Sounds like the 88 year old lady just got 6 months this year, for denying it.

Ursula Haverbeck was not jailed for just denying. She was initially fined for breaking the Holocaust denying laws, not jailed, and continued to break those laws which have resulted in a more severe punishment. She had been distributing banned material which promoted hate for years. She had issued threats to political and private citizens one of which made direct reference to ethnic cleansing. She was a constant disruption during her trial. This is above and beyond her association with groups that actively engage in sedition.

Sounds like the 88 year old lady just got 6 months this year, for denying it.

Ursula Haverbeck was not jailed for just denying. She was initially fined for breaking the Holocaust denying laws, not jailed, and continued to break those laws which have resulted in a more severe punishment. She had been distributing banned material which promoted hate for years. She had issued threats to political and private citizens one of which made direct reference to ethnic cleansing. She was a constant disruption during her trial. This is above and beyond her association with groups that actively engage in sedition.

Like I said, no one gets jailed for just denying.

Fined. Jailed. Taking away from her right to believe whatever the hell she wants. That's limited freedom of speech.

No rights are taken away. She's free to believe whatever the hell she wants. Literally nothing can and will stop her. What she can't do without facing consequences is spread around lies and hate or incite violence.

I really don't know why you defend hate speech. It's pretty much indefensible. Why should anyone have any right to treat someone else like crap? Why should anyone have any right at all to say hateful things? All it causes is suffering. Should everyone be free to cause suffering upon others? Why? If you think they should then by extension why not physical violence? Why not murder? They should be free to do as they like, right? Where do you draw the line?

You think they should be free to spread such hate? Do you feel the same about radical Islamists? They should be free to spread their ideals and radicalize people? Cause that's kinda where hate speech always goes. So why tolerate it in any form?

No rights are taken away. She's free to believe whatever the hell she wants. Literally nothing can and will stop her. What she can't do without facing consequences is spread around lies and hate or incite violence.

I really don't know why you defend hate speech. It's pretty much indefensible. Why should anyone have any right to treat someone else like crap? Why should anyone have any right at all to say hateful things? All it causes is suffering. Should everyone be free to cause suffering upon others? Why? If you think they should then by extension why not physical violence? Why not murder? They should be free to do as they like, right? Where do you draw the line?

You think they should be free to spread such hate? Do you feel the same about radical Islamists? They should be free to spread their ideals and radicalize people? Cause that's kinda where hate speech always goes. So why tolerate it in any form?

I want the racist and crazy and hate filled people to be able to say whatever they want, when they want, how they want. In turn, I want to be able to do the same. As long as they're not hurting anyone (no, your feelings don't count), I for one will always defend free speech, hate speech and all. If we start giving governments the authority to stop those people, what happens when someone comes to power that doesn't agree with us? Now we're the ones that can't speak out anymore.

The first amendment protects freedom of speech, not freedom of thought, that why it's called free speech. By the constitution, hate speech, just like all speech should be protected, just as the free speech to call neo Nazis idiots should be protected, because that is what north America was built on. The freedom to say what you want to say with the only consequences being social, and by saying that a certain speech should be punishable by the law simply because you don't like it, is against not only the constitution but to the very founding fathers themselves.

No one should get fined just for saying something, no matter how ignorant or bizarre. I don't want a corporation like Comcast to be able to effectively limit what kinds of opinion sites can be made, and I don't want the government doing that either. Unlike some, I don't care what form the authority takes. If it's crossing a line, it's crossing a line, regardless of if you call it government, corporate, financial, intelligence, religious, etc. It's all authority trying to control other people, regardless of what flag or logo it wears and regardless of how it enforces that authority.

However, in this case, it sounded like she used the classic hate-group strategy of forced reaction for pretend victimization. This is a common strategy among hate groups and has been for about a century. Step 1) Push for reaction, try to get physically attacked or jailed. Threaten, attack, abuse, whatever it takes to get reaction. If reaction is not made, repeat step 1 until desired result is met. Step 2) claim victimhood to make others angry and gain sympathy for your cause. This is not only the oldest trick used by hate groups, but pretty much their only strategy aside from direct violence. They're not the most creative lot. Unfortunately, people continue to fall for this obvious ploy no matter how many times it's repeated.

I despise hate groups, but limiting speech is not the answer. Louder speech in the other direction is the answer! Perfect example is this stupid little church called Westboro. They protest loudly during soldier's funerals, as well as funerals of police, first responders, firefighters, etc, because they think America is evil because we don't kill gays. However, a group of motorcyclists called Patriot Guard Riders decided to follow Westboro around and loudly chant the national anthem or so, in between them and the funeral. As a result, those attending the funeral can't even hear or see Westboro. All they see/hear is a group of guys chanting the anthem in support of the fallen. PGR has even developed an online network to track movements of Westboro to head them off. In this case, louder speech in the other direction is actually literally what defeats hate speech.

Feelings do count, first off. If you feel threatened by someone based on how they act or what they say you should be able to have an authority figure be able to step in, assess the situation, and resolve it as peacefully as possible (either in the "leave this person alone" way or the "you're being paranoid and ridiculous" way). Or I guess it's someone's right to yell at their wife. Or call for the extermination of western values. I'm sure you'd all be right at home with radical Islamists yelling their rhetoric around you, hmm? You wouldn't feel threatened or uncomfortable about that, right? They're just exercising their free speech to talk about how they want to kill all of you. That's fine. No need for any kind of intervention there.

Everyone should have the right to say what they like but should also be able to be responsible enough to understand what they are saying and how it effects those around them. Unfortunately this is not often the case. And until people get out of their own heads and really get some empathy for their fellow man there will likely always be a need for limitations on freedoms.

Why does anyone need to spout hate speech? What good does it do? Is this really a right people need to have? Not the freedom of speech but the freedom to belittle and dehumanize another group of people. Cause this is what you're defending here. Not free speech as a whole. The freedom to tell someone that you hate them and you wish they and all their kind were dead. Is that really a freedom that warrants defending?

Hate speech is necessary, because it can create the necessary conflict for people to do good and right things in opposition to it. There are plenty of charities out there that have turned neo Nazi marches into support for charities that they hate, like you can go online right now and "adopt a Nazi" and pay more and more money depending on how far your Nazi walks, and these charities have made more and more money from that than they ever could without these Nazi marches, a man screaming at his wife will only cause that wife to realize that he should divorce that man rather than have that man slowly eat away at her through his actions, and radical islamists screaming about western culture needing to die can only force western culture to unite and tell those idiots to go to hell and become more stronger and united than they ever where before. Hate speech, toxicity and anger is the fuel that can raise good men to be better than they are and forge stronger bonds that wouldn't be possible otherwise. Hate speech means that a greater force will do good simply to put hate speech in it's place, because without that evil their can be no good to put it back in it's place.

"I felt threatened" is how cops get away with murder. "You don't need..." is how the government makes contraband. How I feel and what I think someone needs does not matter. That's just ways to control everyone else like a dictator.
If a man yells at his wife, divorce him.
If a radical maniac yells at me, I'll yell back, or just ignore him and move on. If he actually threatens me, I'll take whatever action is necessary to defend myself. No need for intervention, just come clean up the body.

There is never a good reason to "limit freedoms" of innocent, law abiding people. Anyone that does is worse than the people spouting off ignorant hate speech- at least the only harm they're doing is to themselves, making themselves sound like terrible human beings.

That's the dumbest defense for hate speech I've ever heard. We need it because people can do good things eventually because of it? Guess what though without it... We wouldn't have the bad things to begin with. No hate speech against Jews? No Nazis. Man not screaming at his wife? Probably a better marriage or at least hopefully one with more healthy communication. No Islamic extremists yelling about destroying the west? Oh look.at that no extremists.

This is like a Stockholm syndrome thing. No no you see this bad thing is actually a good thing! What a load of rot.

And I'm sure all those who have suffered because of hate crimes know that their suffering was meaningful so someone else can learn that it's a bad thing. It's almost as if you asked the victims of it they could tell you themselves!

Innocents suffering so that others can learn a lesson. In what world, in what way at all is this any kind of right? You don't need to know sadness to know joy. You don't need to know evil to know good. Cause guess what. Without evil all that's left is good. It's not like it can sneak it's way in. Gee you think wanting another and everyone like them dead is a bad thing? Durr I dunno, better wait till someone says or does that to find out.

Obviously then the sudden and unexpected death of a family member is needed because it can bring the family together. Much better than having that person around for years.

Obviously these bad things all happen to teach people the valuable lesson that bad things are bad.

"Empathy for other human beings" what's that? So glad tons of people died so we know now that dehumanizing others and killing them is bad. Couldn't have figured that one out ourselves!

"I felt threatened" is how cops get away with murder. "You don't need..." is how the government makes contraband. How I feel and what I think someone needs does not matter. That's just ways to control everyone else like a dictator.
If a man yells at his wife, divorce him.
If a radical maniac yells at me, I'll yell back, or just ignore him and move on. If he actually threatens me, I'll take whatever action is necessary to defend myself. No need for intervention, just come clean up the body.

There is never a good reason to "limit freedoms" of innocent, law abiding people. Anyone that does is worse than the people spouting off ignorant hate speech- at least the only harm they're doing is to themselves, making themselves sound like terrible human beings.

Only harm they're doing is to themselves. So when someone goes "hey that guy's right we should kill them all" and then goes and shoots up a place they're only harming themselves.

Ok, let's have 100% free speech nothing you say can be against any law.

We wouldn't need laws if people were all good and decent. But we're not. We're fallible. Some more than others. Laws seperate the good from the bad, or they should. Those who will break no laws need them to protect against those who break them.

It's easy to say there shouldn't be a law for this or that when absence of that law wouldn't change your life.

Getting rid of hate speech doesn't get rid of bad things though. If Nazi's aren't allowed to say bad things about jews they would still not employ them and just say they didn't hire them for another reason, and we wouldn't have charity's that help jews, gays and minorities who depend on people hating them enough to donate money to them through their marches. Even if the man wasn't allowed to yell at his wife he would still hurt her in other more subtler ways that would keep her with him and even if radical muslims couldn't say they hated us, they could still plot in secret like they always do. Hate speech doesn't generate evil, hate speech just makes evil easier to see, and without it evil would be harder to see and their would be less motivation to fight it. It isn't completely good but rarely things are. Also? You're point about "Hey it was good that your family member died" is just stupid.... bad shit is always going to be around, you can't get rid of it, it's fucking impossible. What should be done, is harnessing the good that those bad things can do and increase that while pushing down the bad side effects.

Yes. Perfectly legal, as long as you don't follow through. If it's in a work setting, fire them or charge them with the appropriate work related crimes. If they make you uncomfortable, tell them to leave- if they don't, now they're tresspassing, and that is illegal.

Project_Hero wrote:

Lying under oath. Freeeeeedom!
Falsifying accusations. So free.
Giving false testimony. Oh so free.
False advertising. Freedom.
Conspiracy. Freedom!
Threats. Freedom!!
Fake bomb threats. Freedom.
Crank calling 911. Freeee
World would be so much better if all of these things were legal.

None of those things are "free speech" because they have actual, physical or monetary consequences. You're wasting taxpayer resources, imparing legal proceedings, causing financial burden on people, and so on. You're confusing words with actions. Especially with the shooting people thing.

Really, I think this comes down to a personal philosophy. There's a saying that I whole heartedly agree with, it basically says that it's better for 100 guilty men to go free, than for an innocent one to be punished.
I take it you'd rather see 100 innocent men punished while trying to stop the one guilty one?

Laws will never stop bad people from being bad. Murder is illegal, but people still do it. Laws are there to punish the guilty after they carry out the crime. They shouldn't exist to punish everyone in a (failed) attempt to stop the bad ones.

Getting rid of hate speech? Probably won't happen. Punishing those who commit it however is a goal. If the Nazi's were not able to blame the Jews for things guess what? They probably wouldn't have come to power in the first place! Gee it's almost as if allowing evil to grow and fester and have outlets it... Increases! Goodness me! It's almost as if if someone spouts something enough more and more people might say "Well he has a point!" Like a certain other prominent political figure who made their campaign by blaming stuff on mexicans!

And Warlocc it's almost as if all hate crimes start out with people spouting off hateful rhetoric. It's almost as if saying people should do a thing eventually you'll find someone drunk enough or dumb enough to do it. Or even if it's just saying that those people are evil or less than human might, shocker, make someone actually believe what they're being told and then act upon it.

Why are you people so adamant in protecting the "rights" of those who are arseholes than protecting those that they are arseholes to? Shouldn't people have the right not to be persecuted based on their heritage or the color of their skin?

What sounds like a better cause?
I want to make sure people have the right to be terrible to other human beings.
Or
I want people to have the right to not have terrible things done to them.

And uh, Warlocc, sexual harassment is a crime. Just an FYI. And I guess mental consequences just aren't a thing? Scaring someone for life mentally? Harassing someone to the point of suicide? Giving people some kind of mental trauma? Nope. I guess these things don't exist. It's not like there's a whole branch of science dedicated to the problems of the mind... Nope.

Fined. Jailed. Taking away from her right to believe whatever the hell she wants. That's limited freedom of speech.

No, you are confusing free thought with free speech.

She is free to think what she wants. She is not breaking any law by discussing her beliefs in privacy. She was even able to present her opinion for review without being charged.

What she is not allowed to do is use a public forum to present what their government has declared to be offensive material. She is not allowed to distribute what the government has declared to be contraband. She is not allowed to threaten physical harm to others. She is not allowed to engage in sedition.

Your own government has laws about what is allowed to be presented in a public forum. There are laws about what the American government considers offensive (obscene) material and not to be distributed. You can't threaten physical harm to others in America without being subject to charges. And while other countries have separate laws for treason and sedition, America decided to lump most of their homegrown anti-government crimes under the heading of treason.

In other words, expression that your government has judged actionable is not protected by the First Amendment.

Here are some examples:
Rob Zicari was prosecuted and entered a plea agreement for a pornographic film he made.

Mike Diana had a graphically violent underground comic and was arrested for distributing it.

The band GWAR has been charge more than once for their act. Many many other musical acts, comedians, live theater and political rallies get charged or fined all the time.

In 2002 an anti-abortion website was posting the names of those who went to clinics and despite their claims of free speech it was shut down and charges were filed.

There are far too many times public schools, libraries or museums have banned books/films/plays/exhibits to list individually.

Protests, strikes, rallies and most other public expressions are subject to a variety of laws.

The point is that governments, all governments, decide what is allowed to be presented in a public forum or distributed in their country. This is why I suggested you learn what the laws you are condemning actually are.

Getting rid of hate speech? Probably won't happen. Punishing those who commit it however is a goal. If the Nazi's were not able to blame the Jews for things guess what? They probably wouldn't have come to power in the first place! Gee it's almost as if allowing evil to grow and fester and have outlets it... Increases! Goodness me! It's almost as if if someone spouts something enough more and more people might say "Well he has a point!" Like a certain other prominent political figure who made their campaign by blaming stuff on mexicans!

And Warlocc it's almost as if all hate crimes start out with people spouting off hateful rhetoric. It's almost as if saying people should do a thing eventually you'll find someone drunk enough or dumb enough to do it. Or even if it's just saying that those people are evil or less than human might, shocker, make someone actually believe what they're being told and then act upon it.

Why are you people so adamant in protecting the "rights" of those who are arseholes than protecting those that they are arseholes to? Shouldn't people have the right not to be persecuted based on their heritage or the color of their skin?

What sounds like a better cause?
I want to make sure people have the right to be terrible to other human beings.
Or
I want people to have the right to not have terrible things done to them.

And uh, Warlocc, sexual harassment is a crime. Just an FYI. And I guess mental consequences just aren't a thing? Scaring someone for life mentally? Harassing someone to the point of suicide? Giving people some kind of mental trauma? Nope. I guess these things don't exist. It's not like there's a whole branch of science dedicated to the problems of the mind... Nope.

Sexual harassment is only a crime in specific settings, and there are already laws for that.

At some point you're going to run out of things to ban, and people will still be evil, and people will always find things that offend them or hurt their feelings. What then? Internment camps for everyone? Anything we say to anyone passed through government approval first?

We protect the free speech of people we disagree with, because as soon as someone comes to power that disagrees with us, we deserve the same protections.

ETA: Further, I just can't get behind the idea that we should take away Brainbot's car, because Brand X might drive drunk.

"Sexual harassment is bullying or coercion of a sexual nature, or the unwelcome or inappropriate promise of rewards in exchange for sexual favors.[1] In most modern legal contexts, sexual harassment is illegal."https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_harassment

Further "The place of harassment occurrence may vary from school, university[17], workplace and other."

So, no. Doesn't seem that it's only in specific settings.

You don't need to run out of things to ban. Because there's this thing, you might have heard of it, called common sense. Where do we draw the line? How about at harrassment and hate speech? You make an off the cuff remark alright, probably not appropriate but it was once, no harm done. Repeated behavior of that type? Probably time for someone to step in.

People will always find things that will offend them or hurt their feelings? How about you as a decent human being take steps to try not to hurt the feelings of those around them or offend them? How about that? How about we as a society don't tolerate hate speech? You know the kind that has no purpose other than to dehumanize and belittle another human being? How about we as a society decide that there is no merits in hate speech? How about that? I wish we didn't have to have laws about this kind of thing. But until people won't abuse the freedom they are given we need limitations on that.

The car example should only be an option if party B regularly has access to Party A's vehicle. The only people laws against hate speech affect are those who utter hate speech. Gee would you look at that? I wonder why so many people support the legality of hate speech? Maybe it's because they themselves would be affected.

If in your example there was one communal vehicle that anyone could drive and yet some fraction of the population drove drunk endangering others... Maybe, just freeking maybe, then there should be some kind of process to try and ensure that doesn't happen? Like filling out a form for the keys. Breathalyzer. Or how about some kind of checks and or balances so some fool doesn't get behind the wheel and hurt or kill someone? Doesn't that sound better?

With free speech protection for hate crimes it's more like taking away the drunk people's vehicle and then taking vehicles away from those who never used it and also had no intention of using it.

A law to allow people to take legal action against people who repeatedly abuse their right to free speech by using to threaten and harass others? Doesn't affect me in the slightest. Has nothing but positive gains. No brainer. No one uses hate speech for good. There is no good reason to have it protected under law.

Feelings do count, first off. If you feel threatened by someone based on how they act or what they say you should be able to have an authority figure be able to step in, assess the situation, and resolve it as peacefully as possible (either in the "leave this person alone" way or the "you're being paranoid and ridiculous" way). Or I guess it's someone's right to yell at their wife. Or call for the extermination of western values. I'm sure you'd all be right at home with radical Islamists yelling their rhetoric around you, hmm? You wouldn't feel threatened or uncomfortable about that, right? They're just exercising their free speech to talk about how they want to kill all of you. That's fine. No need for any kind of intervention there.

Everyone should have the right to say what they like but should also be able to be responsible enough to understand what they are saying and how it effects those around them. Unfortunately this is not often the case. And until people get out of their own heads and really get some empathy for their fellow man there will likely always be a need for limitations on freedoms.

Why does anyone need to spout hate speech? What good does it do? Is this really a right people need to have? Not the freedom of speech but the freedom to belittle and dehumanize another group of people. Cause this is what you're defending here. Not free speech as a whole. The freedom to tell someone that you hate them and you wish they and all their kind were dead. Is that really a freedom that warrants defending?

If feelings count, and you hurt my feelings by disagreeing with me, you just committed an act you say shouldn't be done. Time to throw you in jail! :p

That's basically what's being done, except they instead want to put rules on it. Oh, it's okay to disagree with what's said, but only if it's from this acceptable list of things to disagree with.

Can't abide by that. Don't want it in my country and think every country that does it, is retardedly whiney. :p

Don't have to agree with what they're saying. I don't agree with the white supremists, don't agree with Hilary thinking it's everyone else's fault but her own for losing, don't agree with people saying astrology is real, don't agree with people saying the earth is flat and don't agree with all these people stepping down from positions and jobs, just because they were accused of something with no evidence other than someone saying "It happened!"

However, by the go to jail for hurting feelings idea, I'd go to jail for hurting someone's feelings on those thoughts :p

It's not about "hurt feelings" it's about feeling threatened or in danger. If I hurt your feelings by disagreeing with you then you probably shouldn't be in a discussion. And jail? Please. An authority figure would first ask the person who would be, and pay attention here it's important, repeatedly harrassing another to stop. If the problem persists they would be fined. Unless the harasser did some other criminal action they would not be jailed. The worst that might happen is a restraining order.

I have no idea what you're talking about with the second point. What aren't people allowed to disagree with? That another group of people are people?

Ok? Good for you? You're allowed to have these views? Nothing is trying to stop that?

Ah yes, evidence. What sort of evidence can be found of "that person felt me up"? What you want camera footage a dozen witnesses? And I think testimonials of a lot of different people recounting similar stories who don't know eachother and have nothing to gain by lying counts as "no evidence" especially when backed up by others who agree that that kind of thing happens alot or that they knew about it and did nothing.

And again no one has gone to jail for hurting someone's feelings. They may have gone to jail on charges related to the hurting of someone's feelings but never that. No one is advocating for it you are arguing against a point that is not there, has never happened, and likely never will.

Freedom of Speech is alive and well here in the Great White North, thank you very much.
What is not tolerated, is Deliberate, Malicious usages of words and terms that are designed to hurt, that is targeted for the purposes of deliberately inciting violence or the threat of violence.
But, that's just us being basically polite, eh?

No one is advocating for it you are arguing against a point that is not there, has never happened, and likely never will.

Ah, the good old "it can't happen to me!".
Famous last words.

Crazier things have happened in this world. I can only imagine what would happen in the US if we had allowed the government to keep a list of Approved Feel Good thoughts that are allowed, then some crazy person manages to get elected and change that list.

No one is advocating for it you are arguing against a point that is not there, has never happened, and likely never will.

Ah, the good old "it can't happen to me!".
Famous last words.

Crazier things have happened in this world. I can only imagine what would happen in the US if we had allowed the government to keep a list of Approved Feel Good thoughts that are allowed, then some crazy person manages to get elected and change that list.

Oh like how some crazy person got elected and won't let a certain government organization use certain words and terms?

But no where did I say "It won't happen to me" I said it hasn't happened, and probably will never happen. Which the "it" is being jailed for saying something disagreeable once. Hate crime laws FINE people who continuously harass other people with hate speech. This is unlikely to change. No one is jailed. No one's quote in quote freedom to be a douche is threatened. Their "freedom" to be a douche that continually harasses people, however comes at a cost.

Oh like how some crazy person got elected and won't let a certain government organization use certain words and terms?

Yeah. Imagine how bad it'd be without the freedoms we enjoy.

Look, no one's saying there shouldn't be consequences for your words and actions. The thing being argued in this thread though, is that too much government regulation is a bad thing, doesn't matter if it's the Internet, freedom of speech, or what have you. If we give them too much power, eventually some maniac will get elected and abuse it. It might be an unlikely scenario, but as we've seen in the US, apparently not that unlikely.

I can only imagine what would happen in the US if we had allowed the government to keep a list of Approved Feel Good thoughts that are allowed

This right here is the problem.
What you personally feel, think or believe is not free speech.

Free speech is expressing any feeling, thought or belief, true or not and regardless if you believe it or not, safe from government censorship or prosecution. But even the most staunch defenders of free speech understand that there is a time, place and manner in which certain expressions can be a danger and agree restrictions should be in place on free speech for the sake of its citizens. Nations with free speech understand that words have power and that power can be used for some truly awful things so in an attempt to provide proactive protections they enact laws which restrict or ban certain expressions of free speech.

In America there are obscenity laws which restrict or ban free expression (based on the Miller test) as well as laws concerning fraud, slander, child pornography, imminent incitement of criminal action, threats of violence, long term verbal abuse and discrimination. There are others that can't be summed up with only a couple words like the laws about a conversation that is required to commit a criminal act such as planning a murder/robbery with another or the many ways advertisement is restricted.

Almost all of these laws are based on current community standards. What that means is the general public agrees that the risk of allowing this type of free speech is greater than having it restricted. These laws change with the times and get amended or abolished as well as new laws proposed to deal with gaps in current community standards.

That is a fundamental aspect of a free society. We understand that we are not able to do whatever we want whenever we want and so we accept that certain restriction need to be in place for our own protection. The same is true of free speech.

So while Brand X looks down on Germany for having a law that prohibits holocaust denial (which isn't a law in Germany, this actually falls under German laws for Incitement of Violence) it is important to understand not only the law but why it is in place. National Socialism (you might know it as the Nazi party) is still a pervasive threat in many parts of Europe. They use the deceptive practice of limiting and denying the Nazi war crimes, including the holocaust, to help recruit the youths of nations. These kids then engage in a kind of urban guerilla warfare. They threaten, use violence, vandalize, steal and so forth in an effort to coerce political power. They are not seeking a lawful exchange of political parties through the use of elections, they are trying to enact a coup. This isn't a new thing either. It has been an ongoing problem since 1945. Many nations in Europe consider this a clear and present danger and so have restricted the discussion of limited Nazi war crimes in an effort to hinder the criminal actions of these groups. Few of the nations have an outright ban on topic. Even Germany allows evidence to be present for formal review that might contradict the accepted history of Nazi war crimes.
Ursula Haverbeck, or as the German press has labeled her, the Nazi Grandmother has presented her evidence for years and has been completely discredited. Her legal problems started when she began using her 'evidence' as a recruitment tool in public. She was told to stop and didn't. She was fined to get her to stop and she didn't. She was arrested to get her to stop and she didn't. This is not a case to champion in the pursuit of free speech. This is a case of someone trying to hide criminal activity under the guise of free speech.

We should be protective of the right to free speech. We should be ever vigilant of our governments usurping control of expression. But free speech is not black and white. Free speech can be used for criminal reasons and should be protected against as well.

I can only imagine what would happen in the US if we had allowed the government to keep a list of Approved Feel Good thoughts that are allowed

This right here is the problem.
What you personally feel, think or believe is not free speech.

Free speech is expressing any feeling, thought or belief, true or not and regardless if you believe it or not, safe from government censorship or prosecution. But even the most staunch defenders of free speech understand that there is a time, place and manner in which certain expressions can be a danger and agree restrictions should be in place on free speech for the sake of its citizens. Nations with free speech understand that words have power and that power can be used for some truly awful things so in an attempt to provide proactive protections they enact laws which restrict or ban certain expressions of free speech.

In America there are obscenity laws which restrict or ban free expression (based on the Miller test) as well as laws concerning fraud, slander, child pornography, imminent incitement of criminal action, threats of violence, long term verbal abuse and discrimination. There are others that can't be summed up with only a couple words like the laws about a conversation that is required to commit a criminal act such as planning a murder/robbery with another or the many ways advertisement is restricted.

Almost all of these laws are based on current community standards. What that means is the general public agrees that the risk of allowing this type of free speech is greater than having it restricted. These laws change with the times and get amended or abolished as well as new laws proposed to deal with gaps in current community standards.

That is a fundamental aspect of a free society. We understand that we are not able to do whatever we want whenever we want and so we accept that certain restriction need to be in place for our own protection. The same is true of free speech.

So while Brand X looks down on Germany for having a law that prohibits holocaust denial (which isn't a law in Germany, this actually falls under German laws for Incitement of Violence) it is important to understand not only the law but why it is in place. National Socialism (you might know it as the Nazi party) is still a pervasive threat in many parts of Europe. They use the deceptive practice of limiting and denying the Nazi war crimes, including the holocaust, to help recruit the youths of nations. These kids then engage in a kind of urban guerilla warfare. They threaten, use violence, vandalize, steal and so forth in an effort to coerce political power. They are not seeking a lawful exchange of political parties through the use of elections, they are trying to enact a coup. This isn't a new thing either. It has been an ongoing problem since 1945. Many nations in Europe consider this a clear and present danger and so have restricted the discussion of limited Nazi war crimes in an effort to hinder the criminal actions of these groups. Few of the nations have an outright ban on topic. Even Germany allows evidence to be present for formal review that might contradict the accepted history of Nazi war crimes.
Ursula Haverbeck, or as the German press has labeled her, the Nazi Grandmother has presented her evidence for years and has been completely discredited. Her legal problems started when she began using her 'evidence' as a recruitment tool in public. She was told to stop and didn't. She was fined to get her to stop and she didn't. She was arrested to get her to stop and she didn't. This is not a case to champion in the pursuit of free speech. This is a case of someone trying to hide criminal activity under the guise of free speech.

We should be protective of the right to free speech. We should be ever vigilant of our governments usurping control of expression. But free speech is not black and white. Free speech can be used for criminal reasons and should be protected against as well.

I haven't seen anyone say that everyone should be able to do whatever they want and call it free speech. At least, not in this thread. Taking action, even planning action, isn't the same as saying what's on your mind. My argument is against banning things and potentially even punishing person A, B, and C, because person D might be evil.

In the USA, free speech is a right protected by the constitution. And like any protected right, it is protected insofar as it does not infringe upon another person's rights, whether those rights are expressly protected by the bill of rights or are implied or implicit. What Brainbot put forth isn't a list of exceptions to free speech, they are examples in which free expression by one actually harms or infringes upon the rights of (an)others.

This whole discussion has devolved into a subjective weighing of the standards that different societies have made in determining whether free expression does or does not infringe upon others' rights.

Germany, for example, has collectively determined that until the specter of Naziism is finally purged, they will make sympathetic expressions illegal. In the USA that would take a constitutional amendment to enact, but then Germany doesn't have our Constitution. Those of us from the USA would consider such laws to be examples of an infringement of free speech. I certainly would. Is that we're discussing here, whether the rest of the world complies with the standards of free speech set forth by the US Constitution?

—

I like to take your ideas and supersize them. This isn't criticism, it is flattery. I come with nothing but good will and a spirit of team-building. If you take what I write any other way, that is probably just because I wasn't very clear.

In the USA, free speech is a right protected by the constitution. And like any protected right, it is protected insofar as it does not infringe upon another person's rights, whether those rights are expressly protected by the bill of rights or are implied or implicit. What Brainbot put forth isn't a list of exceptions to free speech, they are examples in which free expression by one actually harms or infringes upon the rights of (an)others.

This whole discussion has devolved into a subjective weighing of the standards that different societies have made in determining whether free expression does or does not infringe upon others' rights.

Germany, for example, has collectively determined that until the specter of Naziism is finally purged, they will make sympathetic expressions illegal. In the USA that would take a constitutional amendment to enact, but then Germany doesn't have our Constitution. Those of us from the USA would consider such laws to be examples of an infringement of free speech. I certainly would. Is that we're discussing here, whether the rest of the world complies with the standards of free speech set forth by the US Constitution?

Nothing about what has been discussed has even touched on "excessive government regulations" considering that the initial subject of this thread was about something that is not an "excessive government regulation" being removed.

Unless you feel any government regulation to be excessive, then there hasn't been anyone in this thread pro excessive regulation. Merely pro -some- government regulation.

What Brainbot put forth isn't a list of exceptions to free speech, they are examples in which free expression by one actually harms or infringes upon the rights of (an)others.

This is a perfect example of words having power.
While what you say is correct Huck, it isn't how your own lawmakers define my list. They define it as 'expressions that have limited or no protection under the first amendment.' It's an important distinction because it is your supreme court that determines what is protected under the first amendment.

Huckleberry wrote:

Germany, for example, has collectively determined that until the specter of Naziism is finally purged, they will make sympathetic expressions illegal. In the USA that would take a constitutional amendment to enact, but then Germany doesn't have our Constitution. Those of us from the USA would consider such laws to be examples of an infringement of free speech. I certainly would.

To actually have a laws that says 'this type of free speech is illegal' would require an amendment. But as I said it is your supreme court that rules on what is protected under the first amendment. And again, the law in Germany does not actually say 'it is illegal to deny the holocaust.' It's called 'Volksverhetzung' or Incitement to the masses and requires a call for violence for legal action to be justified.
I like to think that no free nation would hinder free speech lightly but I am also wary of laws made while a nation is fearful. In the wake of global terrorism many nations, America included, have passed laws that infringe upon civil liberties. I understand that in times of immediate danger we must accept certain aspects of freedom to be affected but I also understand it is during those times when the opportunistic lawmakers will be most dangerous. I too find a law prohibiting holocaust denial an unacceptable infringement but I don't live in a place where it has the same impact as it does in some parts of Europe. I also find hate crime laws questionable because they are essential trying to police thoughts and feelings but again I don't live in fear of a hate inspired crime being perpetrated on me so my opinion is more academic than practical.

Huckleberry wrote:

Is that we're discussing here, whether the rest of the world complies with the standards of free speech set forth by the US Constitution?

I can't speak for others, but I'm not. I was making a counter point to Brand X's impugnment of free speech in mine and others countries.

No one is advocating for it you are arguing against a point that is not there, has never happened, and likely never will.

Ah, the good old "it can't happen to me!".
Famous last words.

Crazier things have happened in this world. I can only imagine what would happen in the US if we had allowed the government to keep a list of Approved Feel Good thoughts that are allowed, then some crazy person manages to get elected and change that list.

Oh like how some crazy person got elected and won't let a certain government organization use certain words and terms?

But no where did I say "It won't happen to me" I said it hasn't happened, and probably will never happen. Which the "it" is being jailed for saying something disagreeable once. Hate crime laws FINE people who continuously harass other people with hate speech. This is unlikely to change. No one is jailed. No one's quote in quote freedom to be a douche is threatened. Their "freedom" to be a douche that continually harasses people, however comes at a cost.

You mean the story that's been said to be false. You mean that President who said "Our country recognizes your country as a country and as such, we recognize your capital as your capital."

While every other country is like "We said we accepted you, but we totally don't."

I'm curious how that isn't being considered a hate crime in these countries. :p

Brand X I literally have no sweet clue what you're even talking about.

And that story was said to be false by whom? Got a source? If it's from the mouth that treats any negative story about him as "fake news" then it doesn't hold much water.

But yeah, for the rest of what you wrote I have no idea what that even is.

For the CDC one, NBC news. CDC insists there's no ban on words. Phillip Defranco also links to stories on it (you tuber, but I read about it on a site before I saw it on his show). So, not calling it fake news myself. Personally, I figured it was miscommunication with the possibility of some left wing nut trying to give people more reasons to hate the President. :p

As for the rest, I thought that was obvious about Israel and about how Canada, Germany and many other countries have said "Yeah. We totally think you're a country, but we just won't accept that you made a city within your borders, the capital of your country."

If I recall the story correctly (this is all recent btw, as the USA was doing this too), every country in the UN recently voted "Nope! No doing!" except for the US, which then vetoed that vote. Bunch of countries hating on a group of people and their choice of their capital. I find it funny they don't consider that a hate crime.

And seriously, you didn't pick up on that recent news event without it being spelled out? o.O

I had no knowledge of the recent news story. I've been working the past few days and don't follow news so closely at the best of times.

Ok, so if it was considered a hate crime what authority would you report it to? You going to issue a cease and desist to all the countries that didn't agree? A restraining order for those countries? Gunna air lift some giant handcuffs into those countries drop them and tell out over a megaphone "You're nicked, mate!"?

I have no idea of the reasoning behind any of the actions so I can't call it one way or the other. Also global politics is a lot different from national laws,so there's that. Although stealing another country's land is a crime, so is assaulting that country, and murdering a county while probably difficult would be a crime... Hm.

Edit: as for the word ban thing, fair enough. Easy to believe though as such a thing has happened before, I believe during the aids crisis they weren't allowed to use the word "blood" so they had to go with "bodily fluids" which caused some confusion and misinformation. I'm not sure if this is 100% accurate as it was recounted to me by a friend, though they are usually pretty well informed.

Nothing about what has been discussed has even touched on "excessive government regulations" considering that the initial subject of this thread was about something that is not an "excessive government regulation" being removed.

Unless you feel any government regulation to be excessive, then there hasn't been anyone in this thread pro excessive regulation. Merely pro -some- government regulation.

That's the discussion. What counts as "some", and what counts as "excessive". Clearly everyone has their own definition of both.

As for the rest, I thought that was obvious about Israel and about how Canada, Germany and many other countries have said "Yeah. We totally think you're a country, but we just won't accept that you made a city within your borders, the capital of your country."

The problem is it isn't recognized, in it's entirety, as their city by the vast majority of the world. The position of most countries is that Israel broke international law when it annexed East Jerusalem in 1967, and that the peace process hinges on a diplomatic resolution of the Jerusalem situation.

Quote:

If I recall the story correctly (this is all recent btw, as the USA was doing this too), every country in the UN recently voted "Nope! No doing!" except for the US, which then vetoed that vote.

Not quite - you are confusing two different events.

Quote:

Bunch of countries hating on a group of people and their choice of their capital. I find it funny they don't consider that a hate crime.

Because, as noted above, the prevailing view is that Israel broke international law, and thus are not recognized as the legitimate owners of the entirety of Jerusalem. That and criticising the actions of the Israeli government does not automatically equate to anti-semitism.

As usual there is more to both of those stories. I strongly suggest others who are interested look them up and do not accept Brand X's propagandize interpretation with false facts blindly.

Propagandized? You mean, six day war in which they took over the rest of Jerusalem? That it's currently accepted that Israel controls Jerusalem, even by those who don't want Israel to control Jerusalem. To recognize Israel as a country, means you accept it's borders. This doesn't mean you have to like it (which is why countries can go to war over it).

Not to mention, you have a lot of people upset with accepting Jerusalem as Israel's capital, who claim not to even be religious, so Jerusalem should be seen as nothing more than another city, not the holy city. Not to mention, I'd like to see this list of international laws that are accepted by all nations as real law (don't worry, you can't). The Geneva Conventions aren't even accepted by all countries.

Last I knew, nothing actually bound a country to these laws and most of the Internation Law is called Customary Internation law, in that's it's nothing more than a Custom but none are 100%.

As for the vote, all countries voted for the US to not recognize Jerusalem as it's capital (even though Israel itself calls Jerusalem it's capital) which the US vetoed. So, not sure how I was false on that either. :p

Propagandized? You mean, six day war in which they took over the rest of Jerusalem? That it's currently accepted that Israel controls Jerusalem, even by those who don't want Israel to control Jerusalem.

No. Propagandized by stating that the motives for not recognizing Jerusalem was motivated by hate.

Brand X wrote:

To recognize Israel as a country, means you accept it's borders. This doesn't mean you have to like it (which is why countries can go to war over it).

Again no. Just because a nation occupies a location does not mean you accept it. And war is not the only avenue for resolution in matter such as this.

Brand X wrote:

Not to mention, you have a lot of people upset with accepting Jerusalem as Israel's capital, who claim not to even be religious, so Jerusalem should be seen as nothing more than another city, not the holy city.

As Interdictor pointed out, the regions peace talks hinge on a diplomatic solution to the Jerusalem question. Those you are talking about do not need to see it as a 'Holy City' to understand that sides of the conflict do. In the interest of peace most of the international community is sticking to the original 'Green Line' that all parties (including Israel) agreed to.

Brand X wrote:

Last I knew, nothing actually bound a country to these laws and most of the Internation Law is called Customary Internation law, in that's it's nothing more than a Custom but none are 100%.

International law cannot be summed up in a single sentence. But most of International law is not Customary, Customary law is not merely 'a custom' and yes there are some that are 100% accepted Customary International laws.

Brand X wrote:

As for the vote, all countries voted for the US to not recognize Jerusalem as it's capital (even though Israel itself calls Jerusalem it's capital) which the US vetoed. So, not sure how I was false on that either.

Well, this isn't what you said before but that wasn't what I was talking about. America had legally recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in the mid 90's. The current issue is that America is going to relocate it's embassy which signals to the world it has taken sides in the conflict. The UN held the vote in an effort to head off the inevitable escalation of conflict.

I have tried to be polite in this discussion with you. I have not said your opinions were wrong only some of your facts incomplete or incorrect. I suggested you look deeper into matters you are holding in contempt to form a more educated opinion (even if your opinion does not change).
I am willing to discuss these issues but I am not interested in arguing the Trump administrations spin on world politics you seem to be rehashing (poorly) here.

No. It kept putting the legal recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel on hold. Which was expected of Trump. To put it on hold.

https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ45/PLAW-104publ45.pdf
That's the actual bill. The only thing put 'on hold' was the moving of the Embassy. Clinton refused to sign the bill, letting Congress pass it into law. From then till now American Presidents used 'Presidential Waiver' to delay the embassy move for national security reasons.

Nikki Haley, Ambassador to the United Nations, stated in a tweet -"At the UN we're always asked to do more & give more. So, when we make a decision, at the will of the American ppl, abt where to locate OUR embassy, we don't expect those we've helped to target us. On Thurs there'll be a vote criticizing our choice. The US will be taking names.'

I bolded the part showing that the Trump administration knows what this vote was about.

Brand X wrote:

People either need to accept that Israel is a country or not. Most seem to. They also accept or acknowledge, Israel controls Jerusalem right now, whether they like it or not.

So, it's really that simple. Israel has it. Others want it. Israel is free to do with it as it wants. The others can accept it, negotiate over it, or go to war over it.

It isn't simple. If it was then the issue would have been resolved before now. They are negotiating over it and part of those negotiations is to not recognize Israel's ownership.

Brand X wrote:

I am curious as to what customary law is 100% accepted by every country in the world though :) Please, tell me, which is it?

I am curious as to what customary law is 100% accepted by every country in the world though :) Please, tell me, which is it?

Brainbot wrote:

Genocide, slavery, piracy, crimes against humanity, Apartheid, ect.

There's been some good debate by all in this thread, it shows how hard it is to match rhetoric (punchy sentences) with reality. On this last point: while there may be laws in every country regarding these things ("crimes against humanity" is vague; Apartheid refers specifically to South Africa so yes, it's been ruled illegal in all cases) they are not necessarily accepted laws. State-sanctioned genocide is currently underway three countries over from me, although sure, there may be laws in the local language that would decry this behaviour if the state got around to admitting it.

—

"The illusion which exalts us is dearer to us than ten thousand truths." - Pushkin "One piece of flair is all I need." - Sister Silicon

There's been some good debate by all in this thread, it shows how hard it is to match rhetoric (punchy sentences) with reality. On this last point: while there may be laws in every country regarding these things ("crimes against humanity" is vague; Apartheid refers specifically to South Africa so yes, it's been ruled illegal in all cases) they are not necessarily accepted laws. State-sanctioned genocide is currently underway three countries over from me, although sure, there may be laws in the local language that would decry this behaviour if the state got around to admitting it.

We are not talking about individual countries laws, we are talking about International Law. Specifically Customary International law of which these are. They are called Peremptory Norm and allow for no exception.

The term Apartheid originated in South Africa but Apartheid is now recognized as a political system that segregates and oppresses a portion of its population.

Please do not confuse the fact that genocide is occurring with it being legal.

International law is a complex topic that we could discuss here for months and only scratch the surface of.

That would be lowercase apartheid then. I do not believe the International Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (a key but not only reference to apartheid in international law) is ratified by my local genocidal country. I acknowledge the law exists but "accepted by every country in the world" is just rhetoric.

—

"The illusion which exalts us is dearer to us than ten thousand truths." - Pushkin "One piece of flair is all I need." - Sister Silicon

No. It kept putting the legal recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel on hold. Which was expected of Trump. To put it on hold.

https://www.congress.gov/104/plaws/publ45/PLAW-104publ45.pdf
That's the actual bill. The only thing put 'on hold' was the moving of the Embassy. Clinton refused to sign the bill, letting Congress pass it into law. From then till now American Presidents used 'Presidential Waiver' to delay the embassy move for national security reasons.

Nikki Haley, Ambassador to the United Nations, stated in a tweet -"At the UN we're always asked to do more & give more. So, when we make a decision, at the will of the American ppl, abt where to locate OUR embassy, we don't expect those we've helped to target us. On Thurs there'll be a vote criticizing our choice. The US will be taking names.'

I bolded the part showing that the Trump administration knows what this vote was about.

Brand X wrote:

People either need to accept that Israel is a country or not. Most seem to. They also accept or acknowledge, Israel controls Jerusalem right now, whether they like it or not.

So, it's really that simple. Israel has it. Others want it. Israel is free to do with it as it wants. The others can accept it, negotiate over it, or go to war over it.

It isn't simple. If it was then the issue would have been resolved before now. They are negotiating over it and part of those negotiations is to not recognize Israel's ownership.

Brand X wrote:

I am curious as to what customary law is 100% accepted by every country in the world though :) Please, tell me, which is it?

Genocide, slavery, piracy, crimes against humanity, Apartheid, ect.

All practiced in various countries. Perhaps not the UN countries, but we said international law and 100% of the countries.